FTP ASCII vs binary "image" (Announce)
> > I am pretty certain on the CR/LF issue.
>
> I tested the ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org server and same problems:
>
> 1. mTCP defaults to ASCII, non-DOS FTP and Firefox to binary
>
> 2. bad performance (mTCP 22 KiB/s, other 82 KiB/s)
>
> 3. many lost packets
[1] Try the command line Windows FTP client with that server. You'll notice that it defaults to an ASCII transfer even on a file that should be sent in binary. This is the correct behavior (as defined by FTP RFCs) for a command line FTP client. If FireFox is getting it as a binary file, then it must be stuffing a 'BIN' command in the command stream first. You'd have to use a packet sniffer to verify that. But remember, the server sets the default transfer mode, not the client. If you find a client that gets BINARY, it is stuffing a BIN command under the covers.
That is something I'm not willing to do. Forcing a command on somebody transparently is wrong, even if you are trying to be helpful.
[2 & 3] What OS are you running Firefox under? You are comparing a full blown OS network stack to a DOS packet driver, and I'm willing to bet that the DOS packet driver is part of the problem. My code doesn't lose packets - it just reports the ones that it didn't get.
Other people are not reporting this, and generally when it happens it is something specific to the packet driver. Have you looked for a different version of the packet driver for your card? I remember you had a PCI cards, and by the PCI era packet drivers weren't being as well tested as they had been before.
Are all FTP servers bad, or only particular ones?
Mike
---
mTCP - TCP/IP apps for vintage DOS machines!
http://www.brutman.com/mTCP
Complete thread:
- mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 21.01.2010, 18:06 (Announce)
![Open in board view [Board]](img/board_d.gif)
![Open in mix view [Mix]](img/mix_d.gif)
- mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - Japheth, 22.01.2010, 09:47
- mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 22.01.2010, 16:56
- mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 07.02.2010, 16:35
- Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 03:22
- Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - Rugxulo, 14.03.2010, 03:56
- Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 15:01
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 27.06.2010, 22:27
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Rugxulo, 28.06.2010, 06:30
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 28.06.2010, 12:05
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 28.06.2010, 14:22
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 07:08
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 13:14
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:06
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 01.07.2010, 13:20
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:03
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 19:16
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 03.07.2010, 16:04
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 14.07.2010, 03:51
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 19:16
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:03
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 13:14
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 07:08
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 28.06.2010, 14:22
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 28.06.2010, 12:05
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Rugxulo, 28.06.2010, 06:30
- mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 27.06.2010, 22:27
- Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 15:01
- Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - Rugxulo, 14.03.2010, 03:56
- mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 22.01.2010, 16:56
- mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 12:41
- mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 16:09
- mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:49
- mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 16:09
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 14:07
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 15:22
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:30
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 19:32
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 21:56
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 23.07.2010, 07:27
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 01:04
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 12:12
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 15:31
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 15:36
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 16:23
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 16:57
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 01:35
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Rugxulo, 25.07.2010, 05:34
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 25.07.2010, 06:16
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 17:17
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 26.07.2010, 02:03
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 26.07.2010, 03:11
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 02:53
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 27.07.2010, 03:31
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 03:40
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 27.07.2010, 03:31
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 02:53
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 26.07.2010, 03:11
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 26.07.2010, 02:03
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 17:17
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 25.07.2010, 06:16
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Rugxulo, 25.07.2010, 05:34
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 01:35
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 16:57
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 15:31
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 12:12
- FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 01:04
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 19:32
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:30
- mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 15:22
- mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - Japheth, 22.01.2010, 09:47
Mix view